I have made some personal inquiries with some of the high bandwidth providing VPS's, they say they aren't oversold but when it comes to the pt. as an vps just to be used a data transfer server, they deny to host it.
What I personally feel is, on a data transfer host, the ram need isn't high and I wasn't asking for more than 2gb space
I was looking for a host with more than 3000gb in the budget of $25-$30, which I wanted to do as partnership with my colleague (sharing costs)
The hosts were ready to host, if its was a normal site and had data transfer like video/image sharing site but not direct transfer site, eg: yourdomain.com/bigfile.tar
I was left wondering why this partiality and does data transfer affect other clients on vps ??
can any explain the reasons for this , as usually hosts have denied to give their response
that might be case with some hosts and not with other.
possibly they might think you'll overload disks with content hosting, or use your traffic allocation to full extent, in that case they are probably overselling.
however there's nothing wrong about using your vps for content hosting, but some hosts can decide to deny content hosting/mirroring, streaming and similar services, for whatever reasons they have, while others won't have anything against that kind of usage.
Can only be companies who are overselling, can't think of any other reason.
edit: if you want 3TB for just 25 dollars you will always end up with providers who are overselling.
Agreed, bandwidth is not free, actually quite expensive to host providers. If the budget hit is one you can take, i'd strongly suggesting raising your budget to $60-80. You'll find some VPS providers can provide you this amount of bandwidth within this price range.
I was looking for a host with more than 3000gb in the budget of $25-$30.
Bandwidth is expensive. Generally speaking, bandwidth costs a webhost about 5-10 cents a GB. So on the low-end, 3,000GB of bandwidth is worth about $150.
Of course, the very large webhosting companies can get their costs down to 1-2 cents a GB. And it certainly helps when a lot of their clients don't use much bandwidth. BUT, they have a lot of expenses in regards to hardware, support, etc.
So no, I wouldn't give you 3TB for $30. It's a losing proposition.
If you really need the bandwidth, you should realistically plan on spending $50-$100 a TB. Otherwise, don't expect much in terms of reliability AND FORGET ABOUT SERVICE!
I've never heard of a decent VPS host say that you can't use your VPS for certain kinds of legal websites that don't have any ethical concerns. I mean, I've heard of providers refusing to host adult content, but that's about it...
For $30/mth, I'd expect a decent host to provide 300-500 gigs a month of bandwdith, and a budget host to provide 1600-2000 gigs a month. Any more bandwidth than that and you're scraping the bottom of the barrel with *REALLY* questionable and sketchy people.
2TB of bandwidth for $30/mo??? I guess we see the bottom of the barrel at different depths.
No, more than that would be, though.
Assuming that a provider has quite cheap bandwidth at $4/mbit, 3TB would be 9.3 Mbps, or $37.2/mth for bandwidth alone. On top of that, obviously, there are hardware costs, staff costs, operational costs, etc.
If a provider has a 3TB/mth option, unless it's the default for all customers, it's probably because the customer needs it; there's likely little oversubscription.
I guarantee that no reputable/reliable VPS provider would offer $0.01/GB. That *IS* bottom of the barrel.
You are asking too much for 20$
You simply cannot expect to get 3TB for 20$.
Even if they provide 3TB for an image sharing site at such a cost,i would think they are oversold.
I know there are many out there providing such services,but i really doubt their credibility.